CE motor stamping info

[bertfam]

If you want something broken, just let my son drive it! He broke an M20 (NOT the original) in the Camaro a few years ago (down shifting from 4th to 3rd), and just a few months ago he broke the rear end in the 57 (original stock rear end, doing burnouts at a show)!

Ed

[bcmiller]

It,s OK Bryon, I have a friend who has a 427 on an engine test stand in his finished man cave plumbed to the outside. And it does run.

That must be awesome!

[ZLP955]

Interesting. If 'CC' denoted a Muncie case only (no internals) then I wonder why that example Bryon posted was stamped with an 'A' prefix to the serial number? Based on the letter that kicked this thread off, the prefix only came into play to distinguish between levels of assembly.

[bcmiller]

Tim,

CC was an empty case as far as I know. For service or warranty.

CT was used for a complete transmission, also service or warranty. Yes, it was possible to buy a complete assembled Muncie over the counter.

I think the letter, A, B, C - was only added to the serial sequence number once the original numbers were used up. Once the numbers were used up with the A number, they went to B, etc.

Probably the same thing was done for engines. At least for 1968-1971, I have not seen a way to distinguish between the different levels of assembly or if it was for warranty versus over the counter.

[ZLP955]

Bryon I thought the GM letter that Kurt posted confirmed the previous hypothesis that the assembly stamp letter prefix to the serial number related to bare block, fitted block, etc. as it lists out the various assemblies available.
Have to say I read the letter 4 or 5 times trying to understand.....
Do you read it differently, that it just provided more blocks of serial numbers for use irrespective of application?

[bcmiller]

Tim, that is not how I read the engine letter.

It is possible, that is what they meant, but I have not seen any proof.

I could be wrong.

But I am about 99 percent sure on the transmission stuff.  I have seen new CC cases in their GM box with part number. 

[bcmiller]

Also it does not seem to fit in with this...
http://www.camaros.org/engine.shtml#service

The last five digits specify the service replacement unit sequence number. The group of numbers to be used by Chevrolet manufacturing plants are as follows:

       Engines
  Flint Motor Plant (L6 Engines) 00001 to 19999  and   80001 to 89999
  Flint V8 Engine Plant               20000 to 49999
  Tonawanda Motor Plant          50000 to 79999

Example: Number CE900175 designates Chevrolet engine - 1969 year, and the 175th unit produced for service at the Flint Motor Plant (L6).

       Transmissions
  Cleveland Transmission Plant    00001 to 14999
  Toledo Transmission Plant         15000 to 24999
  Saginaw Transmission Plant      25000 to 34999
  Muncie Transmission Plant        35000 to 44999
  Hydra-Matic transmissions will be numbered with the letter "H"
  regardless of the G.M. Division using the transmission.

[69Z28-RS]

The GM effort to serialize/ID replacement assemblies or parts had to do with the state of Georgia's requirement to uniquely identify replacement parts (whether warranty replacement or counter sales the say GM implemented), which would be USED to replace an original part which contained a unique ID number.   The *original unique ID number* was the vehicle VIN, which was only stamped into the front pad of the BLOCK for the engine, and the front case of the Transmission.   For GM to comply, they chose to serialize/uniquely ID ALL replacement parts they shipped which would have contained a stamped vehicle VIN (from the factory)- The part with the factory VIN would be removed, and a GM part (bare block, fitted block, short block, engine assembly Or front trans case, or transmission assembly) which would carry a unique IDentifer (the CT, CE, CC id) and the use would have to be recorded/stored by GM in order to comply.

The original GM internal memo addressed the blocks of ID numbers to be used by each plant for engines (CExxxxx) and transmission (CTxxxxx).  After the sequences were used up, the letter A was added and the sequence began again, then B...etc. 

The letter Kurt posted was NOT the first letter sent out (I have a copy of that somewhere).   I posted an earlier memo than the one Kurt posted (dated late in '68) in the 2013? thread this topic, and referenced that thread in response to Kurt's post.

To summarize:   the added LETTERS (A, B, etc) do NOT specify level of assembly, but instead are treated like another higher order digit to the sequence number.

[bcmiller]

Gary, yes I agree with your summary. Thumbs up!

[ZLP955]

To summarize:   the added LETTERS (A, B, etc) do NOT specify level of assembly, but instead are treated like another higher order digit to the sequence number.

Unless I've missed something, I'm not sure how such an unequivocal conclusion can be drawn, in the absence of knowing the content of the referenced letters dated August 6th and December 9th 1968. Over many threads discussing CE blocks here, two theories have been proposed as to the letters observed before the serial number. First one that it denoted bare block, fitted block etc, and a second theory that it was just another batch of numbers to be used once the first round was used up.
I bought into the second theory, but the big question that I have wrestled with is, is it realistic to think that so many Flint small block engines would have required replacement under warranty, so early in the 1969 model year? Especially enough to require the release of more than another 4x that number originally allocated to Flint V8, by the fall of '69?
The first theory (if it could be proven correct) would provide some explanation as to why the letter prefixes were added to Flint allocation so early on, so I'm keeping an open mind.
Interested to hear other's take on this, but a lot more research is needed. Of course, finding those 2 extra GM internal letters would probably shed some light on this.

[Kelley W King]

My CE9 BB has no letter. dated 7-9-69. heads are 2-69 and car is 12A. So I think it was a shortblock ?

[bcmiller]

Tim, remember the warranty period covered more than just 1969 cars. It went back several years.

[crossboss]

Boys,
Its been my understanding that since 1968 manufacturers were VIN stamping (or partial vins) on blocks, cylinder heads, transmissions and in some cases rear end housings because of the Feds requiring it for stolen parts IDs? OR was it simply as debated for warranty claim(s)?

[bcmiller]

Boys,
Its been my understanding that since 1968 manufacturers were VIN stamping (or partial vins) on blocks, cylinder heads, transmissions and in some cases rear end housings because of the Feds requiring it for stolen parts IDs? OR was it simply as debated for warranty claim(s)?

That’s a different topic. Not on heads and not on axle housings.

We are talking about warranty stuff.

[69Z28-RS]

Tim, remember the warranty period covered more than just 1969 cars. It went back several years.

GM first initiated the CE/CT stamping in August of 1967, primarily to address 1968 and later vehicle parts, BUT... it seems most likely that GM instituted the SAME procedure from that point forward to address ALL warranty replacements of engines and transmission covering 1967 and earlier  cars which were still under warranty.

Tim:  I first had the same impression as you (that there must have been a helluva lot of warranteed motor work to cover that number of parts!).. but there were also letters (which I've seen) which allocated strings of numbers to various supplier plants, so every plant didn't have a sequence of 100000 numbers which had to repeat prior to getting to the A, B, etc.  and remember that Chevy produced a few million cars per year...

I've spent the last hour looking for copies of additional letters (which I've had before) which addressed some/all of this, but was unsuccessful finding them on my current computer.   Since I first gained access to these 'CE' letters (1990-92 timeframe via the Vettenet) I've gone thru a half dozen personal computers and probably that number of work computers (which I no longer have access to).  I have always TRIED to move such data when I transitioned, but I don't think I was always successful.   I've researched the CE issue since 1988 when I purchased a '69 Corvette 350/350 engine which was *supposed* to have been the original engine but which turned out to be a CE, and it was the original owner who told me it was original.  I found out after much work that the short block was replaced under warranty about 2 weeks after initial delivery and 20 yrs later, he didn't remember that!~